Does GOP need *every* seat?Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2012, at 9:04 AM
It is unfortunate that the state Supreme Court rejected the state's redistricting commission plan. We're not criticizing the decision itself -- since the court is the final arbiter of the law -- but rather the timing.
There's only about five weeks until the filing deadline for the May primaries, and since, in Idaho, whoever wins the Republican primary is usually the person who wins in November, there's a very narrow window for the commission to come up with a new map that doesn't split as many counties as the current version does.
The pressure is squarely on the commission to come up with a map quickly enough to let potential candidates make up their mind whether or not to run -- and it begs the question of what happens when that map is challenged in the courts (which is almost a given).
But there was one aspect of the fallout from the court's decision that was unconscionable.
The two top Republican leaders in the state wanted to "fire" the people they'd appointed to the commission because the boundaries weren't set up in a way so as to make Idaho's Republican majority even stronger.
Clearly, they wanted the districts gerrymandered to give Democrats even less of a chance to win a state seat than they already have -- which are slim to begin with.
That's a naked power play that flies in the face of any effort to give at least lip service to maintaining a two-party system in Idaho. They should be ashamed.
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]
Hot topics'Ad astra per aspera...'
(1 ~ 5:15 PM, Mar 4)
We can't afford to lose battle against terrorism
Elected officials can't have it both ways
Education proposal deserves merit
Thoughts on the president's education proposal